Goodbye flaky pie dough from your neighborhood diner. Seriously, good luck finding someone to cook a decent pie crust for $9 an hour with no Crisco. Okay, okay, graham cracker and butter works well, but still....I'm not sure our popular understanding of biochemistry is solid in either direction.

I support disclosure. I agree trans-fats seem to be a big source of health problems, along with sugars, alcohol, smoking, etc. So is a lack of exercise. I don't think it's wrong for the city to work on these issues, but I think a ban is out of proportion to what's being done on other health risks, and it does entail some genuine "sacrifices", in terms of some food that people think of as standard fare.

Certainly no one has demonstrated that eating an occasional piece of pie with dough made from Crisco is a real health risk. Gorging yourself on the stuff can't be a good idea. Is there some reasonable middle ground?

Maybe I'm just overly protective of my ability to get a good piece of pie without having to make it myself.

By the way, I just read that webmd link, that says that the body treats hydrogenated fats like saturated fats. Call me an armchair whatever, but that seems like an unsupported statement.

The chemical modification of the fat could introduce a whole other set of challenges to the body that what saturated fat poses. Presumably, we've evolved (if you believe in that sort of thing) to handle animal fat in reasonable measure. But a chemical modification introduces unknowns, in terms of our currrent understanding of biochemistry.

I know I'm seemingly arguing against my position opposing a ban, but I actually think, simultaneously, that trans-fats are scary but they should not be banned.

The cocoa butter that makes chocolate bars solid is a saturated fat, not a trans fat. So don't worry about losing chocolate bars if this ordinance is passed, even if it applied to all foods.

But really, why do even sensible people like Jack Bogdanski allow themselves to be panicked by phonied up health scares? Are we going to ban red meat, butter, high-fructose corn sweetener, monosodium glutamate, or anything that someone says is not perfectly good for everyone? All of those are at least as bad for you as trans fats. I actually don't eat any of those things, but I don't want to dictate my diet to everyone else.

I like knowing what's in my food. If restaurants had to disclose that in some meaningful way, I'm not sure I'd regulate how they actually prepare the food, beyond the regulation we already have. But is meaningful disclosure possible?

It's just like the warnings on cigarette packages - and no one smokes THEM anymore.

Right?

Disclosure should apply to bicycle riders, mountain climbers, boat operators, breathers, and on and on and on....

'cause without disclosure (in that time-honored, government mandated, proactive way), we'd all be lost. Civilization as we know it would end. Personal responsibility (however quaint the notion) would fail utterly as a means of sustaining the species.

It is funny that the linked article mentions the owner of Halibut's saying that trans fats are coequal to the flavor of his fish and chips -- last week I ate some fish and chips in Vancouver, BC which made his taste like Mrs. Pauls (made without trans fats).

I think the genuine motivation for a restaurant to use trans fats at all is one of cost: trans fats have a much longer shelf-life than fats that are not chemically manipulated.

I don't buy the shelf life argument, as it relates to restaurant cooking fat. A restaurant that uses that much of the stuff is going to go through multiple units in no meaningful time. They can just adjust their order if shelf life is really an issue.

The shelf life usually mentioned in the context of trans fats relates to packaged goods like Oreos, which can sit on the shelf forever compared to a loaf of bread or standard bakery-made cookie. The new process for Oreos, by the way, isn't using trans fats. They've retrofitted the local Oreo plant on Columbia. Nabisco or Kraft or whoever it is now. I can't keep track.

Trans fats also provide a more solid texture than regular vegetable oils, more closely approximating butter and other fats that are solid at room temp. Lard, for example.

By the way, the best lard is town is the manteca at that Mexican grocer on Alberta and like 18th. Just go in and ask for manteca. Real rendered pork fat, compared to the bleached scary Hormel stuff from the supermarket. Something like two bucks for a quart. Bring your own pan or something to put the greasy container in your car so you don't make a mess. High quality manteca is essential for really good tamales or carnitas.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that kind of compromise on this one in Portland...

Nah...when the legislature was considering the foie gras ban, we ordered some at Carafe and chef Pascal came out himself with a petition to sign.

Part of what makes Portlanders great is a streak of rebelliousness. I don't see us standing still for folks telling us what we can eat. Let us know what crap is in our food, sure. THAT'S useful information. But if I want to stuff Oreos up my nose, that's MY business. (Well, my wife Anne might find that annoying and weigh in...)

I'm no chemist, but it seems like good old fashioned lard has got to clog arteries about as well as Crisco. They're both solids at room temperature, they both taste like wax until you heat/bake them, and they both have LOTS OF SATURATED FAT.

The nutritionists that I've spoken with believe that fat, especially saturated fats, are the real enemy. These are the dry toast, non-fat milk, tofu, lemon juice salad dressing radicals that may live forever, but THEY HATE EVERY MEAL.

I'm more worried about going deaf from all the jackhammers downtown than I am worried about the trans-fats I get from restaurant meals. Why not ban jackhammers? What's wrong with good old fashioned sledge hammers and a line of convicts in leg irons. If your going to legislate us back to the 19th Century, let's not forget the good parts.

I say NO to government babysitting and P.C. fascist B.S. like this. If restaurants want to voluntarily promote the fact that their items contain no trans fat then I think that it is a great marketing strategy. Let those who fail to disclose wither in the dust.

We have so many choices if we open our eyes and take ownership over our own health. Adult human beings should have an intrinsic right to make their own choices about their personal physical well being and what goes into their own body. We have legalized the concept that a girl under the age of 18 has the right to an abortion without parental notification, but at the same time we won't let her eat a donut cooked in hydrogenated vegetable oil?

If you want to stuff your face with french fries and lard who are we as a collective to stop that? We already let you kill yourself with excessive alcohol and cigarettes...why not lard? It isn't like a heroin habit where you start knocking off liqour stores to feed your Krispy Kreme habit. BTW...I personally would never eat anything with trans fat, and I ask if I had any doubts. I hope MacDonalds, Krispy Kreme and Skippers go bankrupt. It's called personal responsibilty and self control. Spend our tax dollars taking guns off the streets so kids stop killing each other over stupid beefs. Also no trans fats in school lunches and no soda pop machines at schools. A complete ban and non-promotion are two different things.

It keeps evolving. Fifteen years ago it was all about banning the MSG. All my Chinese greasy spoon had to do was post "No MSG" on the door, and we all breathed a little easier. If restaurants began doing the same thing with trans fats would it make any difference? Would people refuse to eat somewhere if they knew there were trans fats in the tiramisu? Dunno.

Why the fuss? There are lots of rules about how food is prepared and what goes in it (or doesn't), that restaurants are subject to. Is this one really different from those? While a few of the comments here challenge the idea that trans fats are harmful, most express opposition to restaurant regulation. Isn't that just silly? Standards are necessary to protect public health. Some will comply on their own (Starbucks just announced that it is phasing trans fats out of its food and drink), but others need the force of law to stay on the right path.

Unfortunately, choice by consumers implies all consumers are aware of what may or may not be in the food they buy in a restaurant. I don't believe most people have the information necessary to make informed decisions about artificially created trans fats being used in the preparation of the food we eat "out".

Many people -particularly the working poor with children- are attracted to cheap, plentiful "fast foods" in order to feed their family on a very, very tight schedule and an even tighter budget.

Without intending to offend some of the authors of comments here, suggesting consumers "have a choice" does not reflect real life for many, many Portlanders.

Mom and/or Dad gets up at 5 am to get ready for work, she/he/they get the kids up to get them ready for school, gets them to school, gets to work, gets off of work, picks up the kids...and everyone is hungry. A stop at McDonald's is enjoyable (especially by the kids), affordable and usually on the way home.

As a result, we have pathetically high rates of juvenile diabetes, juvenile obesity, uninsured or underinsured heart disease for Mom and Dad...all because trans fats are cheaper to use than the same foods prepared in canola, soy or peanut oil.

I believe that restaurants can cook exactly the same foods we enjoy eating without preparing the food in trans fat oils that have been proven to be unnecessarily deadly to the health of children and adults.

As a result, we have pathetically high rates of juvenile diabetes, juvenile obesity, uninsured or underinsured heart disease for Mom and Dad ... all because trans fats are cheaper to use than the same foods prepared in canola, soy or peanut oil.

What next?

"We have pathetically high rates of juvenile diabetes, juvenile obesity, uninsured or underinsured heart disease for Mom and Dad ... all because ice cream tastes better than nonfat yogurt"?

I fully support a ban of TransFat, I just wish they would ban HFCS (High Fructose Corn Syrup) as well. The main reason people use HFCS instead of sugar is the government subsidies on corn. (The same reason that ethanol is even reasonably priced.)

I just hope that they are smart, and do similar to what NY did, don't ban TransFat as a whole, just ban man-made/chemically created TransFat. (There is natural TransFat in beef, milk, cheese, etc but from what I have read our body reacts entirely differently to it because it's molecular composition is different.)

There are two main reasons TransFat is in use today:

* Cheaper- It is way cheaper, and lasts much longer in a deep fryer. (Something like 4-5 times longer.)
* People forced a change because they thought saturated fat was bad. As it turns out TransFat is worse for us than the saturated fats they replaced.

Many people -particularly the working poor with children- are attracted to cheap, plentiful "fast foods" in order to feed their family on a very, very tight schedule and an even tighter budget.

I've raised children on a very tight budget and eating "out" has never been cheaper then eating in. McDonald's isn't only a poor choice for healthy food, it's certainly more expensive then spaghetti or chili or a dozen other healthy meals made at home.

Juvenile obesity isn't solely a matter of "trans-fats," it's also a by-product of a lazy life-style of drive-thrus, and a predatory fast-food industry that promises "happy meals."

Besides, telling a chef what to use to cook his fish and chips in just seems so unnecessarily intrusive, especially when there really are higher priorities. Let's spend whatever this regulatory scheme would cost to build sidewalks where needed, and make street-crossing safe, so our kids can get back to walking to school. That's a far better bang for the buck in terms of getting our kids healthier. And it is government empowering our kids -- not playing nanny to them and their parents.

I hear you Randy, but at some point you have to draw the line on government babysitting. It's no secret that taverns and cheap cigs are abundent in Lents and St. Johns. I lost one parent to booze and the other to tabacco, but in the end I dealt with it because people have to make a choice on their own. Education and information go farther than dictatorship. Start with healthy breakfasts and lunches along with nutritional education in the schools, starting in the early grades. Give a kid a fish for a day and they eat for a day, teach a kid how to fish and they eat for a lifetime. Trite but true. Also fast food isn't really all that cheap anymore when you compare the nutritional value to dollar ratio.

. . . then on to Social Host responsibility . . . and then on to . . . a . . .

Good Neighbor Policy.

Each person shall have the right to walk into their neighbor's house, stroll over to the fridge and then dispose of all the stuff they find objectionable.

This could apply to a near infinite list of things that anyone in their subjective mind could believe fits within the Good Neighbor Policy.

Given the non-uniformity of the perspective of any two people let's then just picture any two people (rather than society as a whole), each of whom have an equal right to raid the fridge of the other, and then point a live cam at the two as they go about the business of raiding each other's fridge until they reach a point where the items in each person's fridge are not objectionable to either.

This could last for a whole season just like A Simple Life. Where the conclusion would surely be like a Jerry Springer end-of-show moment when Jerry offers a tidbit on the philosophy of life that it had nothing to do with objectionable food after all but about ___________.

The next season will be about clothes (in school, in __, and in __). And the next about ______. Then the season long series format will be converted into a one topic per episode format. And then we will create a show like The View with a select panel to set out the policy for us all, and reduce the same to public policy that is compulsory. And when the banter turns to hostility Randy can tax talk, by taking away folk's cell phones via a tax . . . and then their walkie talkies . . . and then when any two people sitting on a city bench exchange words (to be content neutral) ON ANY TOPIC AT ALL.

Meanwhile, in the voice of the narrator of some old Walt Disney flick, the producer of the show presents to the silent observers their definition, by way of the examples presented, of feeblemindedness.

I'll take the perspective of a 14 year old telling a parent and that it is they who is crazy and that the burden is on them to prove otherwise. (It . . . is . . . not . . . about . . . FOOD. Yes it is. No it isn't. __. __. . . .)

My Kettle Brand Sea Salt & Vinegar potato chips I was munching on last night --made in Salem-- proudly declares "never any trans fats." Guess that makes it a health food? I can eat all I want? I bought them in New Seasons so they MUST be good for me!

Anybody remember when carbs were the "enemy" (lay off that bread!) but pork rinds --no carbs!-- were righteous. This food stuff can get pretty silly.

I think helping businesses who DON'T use trans-fats with a "never any transfats" city-sponsored decal or something has some educative value, and maybe gets people paying more attention. But what's next, the sodium police? Meanwhile the benzene fills our air from car emissions...

Eating excess sugars, carbs, calories, and fats (of all kinds) contributes to childhood (and adulthood) obesity, heart disease, and diabetes. A proposed ban on trans-fats in city restaurants will be meaningless if a person continues to eat the same deep fried or baked foods in excess (even if prepared without trans-fat).

Red Vines boldly proclaim "Always Fat Free"...Does that make licorice a health food? You can eat a pile of potato chips fried in Olestra, knowing that the fat molecules will "pass through" without being digested: does that make over indulgence in "reduced fat" potato chips a healthier choice than an apple, orange, or baked potato?

And what enforcement mechanism is contemplated by the CoP? When a non-compliant restaurant is discovered, what penalties would apply? I can imagine a brisk black market in transferring banned substances into "approved" containers.

Banning Trans-Fat from restaurant foods is like a City of Portland ordinance banning torture -- on Tuesdays -- within city limits. The other 6 days of the week are unconstrained; the rest of the state remains available to torturers.

Most of the prepared foods we eat (especially those in the grocery stores) were not prepared/canned/baked/processed within City Limits. There are very few people who rely on restaurants within City Limits for the majority of their caloric intake.

More Nanny Government doesn't make us healthier; it simply expands the scope and size of government.

I'm with Frank - while trans fats are certainly harmful, I worry that we're going for the quick fix solution to childhood obesity (ban the transfats!) rather than the longer systemic changes necessary (safe neighborhoods, better sidewalks, schools with - gasp - a PE program, a SUN school program in every school that provides affordable recreational opportunities for *all* kids, etc.)

And while it might feel good (and make us feel like we're doing something positive) banning transfats really won't do much to impact the health of Randy's mythical McDonald's family above - after all, they're still eating McDonald's for dinner, aren't they?

(Lest you think I'm unsympathetic, I'm not - I'm a single working parent of modest means myself who's relied on fast food for dinner before.)

"I believe that restaurants can cook exactly the same foods we enjoy eating without preparing the food in trans fat oils that have been proven to be unnecessarily deadly to the health of children and adults."

Mr Leonard, then let start addressing places like sex clubs and bathhouses where people engage in unsafe sex and start banning those also even if it is consenting adults who may also like to eat french fries also.

You seem to have this hubris that you can fix everyone's problems by passing laws after you read a book or two you agree with. The underlying tone is how you need to save stupid people from themselves and it is offensive to anyone with an IQ > 50.

Let us not forget that Clark Griswold in National Lampoons Vacation was a Food Preservative inventor. Randy, I fear you are trying to put him out of work. What about his wife, the kids, cousin Eddie? They all count on his income!

Doesn't the city have bigger fish to fry (regardless of what oil they choose to fry them in)?

I'm totally with Randy on this. It's a public health issue. The arguments on the other side are mostly recycled seat belt arguments: misguided libertarianism. With a sprinkling of "I know it's bad for me, but I want it anyway." Public health, folks. Manufactured trans fats are, from what we seem to know, poison. And, as Jack hilariously points out, we need the Crisco for our gasoline.

If you really have the noble, paternalistic motivation for this ban that you claim, why not ban alcoholic beverages and cigarettes? Simply employ the same logic and get far more bang for the buck in terms of public health (or will it be tens or hundreds of thousands of bucks)? Why are trans-fats at the top of your list? I think you folks (council & Potter) pick around the edges just to play to your constituents and to distract public attention from the larger, tougher issues which make up the basis of the need for city government - and which ours regularly neglects. It's feel-good noise which erodes confidence in city government on the part of its responsible citizens and further increases government dependence in those whose attitudes toward self-reliance (I hope that's still a noble goal) are, as yet, unformed or ill-formed.

How many more city employees will creation, administration and enforcement of this ban require? Where's the scientific cost/benefit analysis? Where's the economic impact statement?

Oh wait, you "...believe that restaurants can cook exactly the same foods we enjoy eating without preparing the food in trans fat..." - well OK, then - as long as you believe.

Frank, Betsy, Steve...

Amen!

and, Randy, why do you have such a low opinion of poor folks abilities and judgement.

I'd really like to hear Randy respond to the philosophical issue: When is government prohibition justified, and when is it not?

Cigarettes are unquestionably bad for you, yet there has been no effort by City Council to ban them (yet). What makes cigarettes different from trans fats?

Randy also says the problem with the low-income family eating at McDonald's is that they "don't have the information necessary to make informed decisions." But if the problem is one of information, prohibition is a radical step. Why not start with the least intrusive regulation -- require disclosure in all restaurants -- and see if that has the desired effect? Packaged food makers are voluntarily eliminating trans fats now that they have to disclose them. . .there's no reason to think restaurants won't do the same.

I think most liberal Portlanders like myself will balk at this type of governmental intrusion. It smacks of Big Brother.

Regulation vs. disclosure is an interesting topic. Alcohol and cigarettes are regulated, but not prohibited. They are of course also subject to some disclosure requirements. Other drugs are also regulated, and some prohibited, ostensibly for public health reasons. On the same basis, prohibition of cigarettes might make sense, although our experience generally with prohibitions on use (as opposed to regulation of the manner of distribution) isn't all that encouraging. Think Eighteenth Amendment, or the "War on Drugs"). The trans-fat-in-restaurant-cooking problem doesn't lend itself very well to disclosure as a remedy. It's not that hard to tell if you're smoking a cigar, but trans fat just tastes like food. Realistically, due diligence (I mean, beyond smelling the cork and all) just isn't part of the ordinary dining experience.

Cigarettes are unquestionably bad for you, yet there has been no effort by City Council to ban them (yet). What makes cigarettes different from trans fats?

The main difference is that it is really hard to avoid eating TransFat. It is very easy, for me, to not smoke a cigarette. In fact, cigarettes are controlled, and minors aren't supposed to be able to buy them because of how bad they are.

Maybe the city should put an age restriction on TransFat, you have to be over 18 to buy and/or consume it. Then pretty much only bars could use/serve it. (I can't imagine a store that would want to, or could, keep track of what items had TransFat in them and ask for ID when someone attempted to purchase one.)

Would that work for you? I would prefer that even bars didn't use TransFat, but I think it would be a step in the correct direction.(Of course, with no restaurant being able to use it, it might go away, and then even bars couldn't use it.)

You are right I don't think the city government should be dealing with TransFat, I think the FDA, or some national body of government should deal with it for everyone, but failing them taking action, I think cities should step up to the plate.

The only other thing that I am currently aware of that I have a hard time avoiding, is HFCS. (High Fructose Corn Syrup) Both TransFat and HFCS is put into just about every food product you can buy. (Even plain old normal bread.)

Some companies even try to pass them off as organic, or all natural. While you can make either from an organic base, neither are 'all natural', and I would say that the chemical manipulation that they do to convert the base product would strip it of being organic.

I think you're right about HFCS. There are several studies indicating a link between the increased use of HFCS and several of the maladies mentioned above. The emphasis (perhaps misplaced) has been on fats and that has left HFCS in the shadows when it may be a far worse culprit.

Basic research at the federal level should be stepped up and strong consideration given to some restrictions, or, at least, warnings until hard data are in.

The same is true for trans-fats.

The trouble arises when they quantify the real dangers of both substances. What is the role of government then? Ban, restrict, warning labels, etc.

I'm on the side of "less is more" in the area of regulation - simply because I think it helps foster more self-reliance and responsibility. Government has aboslutely no business saving us from ourselves. That's just substituting government for God in the social evolution debate. I think that one's almost settled.

Randy -
If your 'low income' family is going to McDonalds, then someone needs to show them how expensive it is to feed a family of four at McDonalds versus cooking it at home. Again, we don't need a ban and we don't need the nanny government meddling in our lives more than it already does. Do something useful like help Sam fix the roads, quit wasting money and time on nonsense like this.

Road Work

Miles run year to date: 156
At this date last year: 225
Total run in 2014: 401
In 2013: 257
In 2012: 129
In 2011: 113
In 2010: 125
In 2009: 67
In 2008: 28
In 2007: 113
In 2006: 100
In 2005: 149
In 2004: 204
In 2003: 269